Slashdot videos: Now with more Slashdot!

View

Discuss

Share

We've improved Slashdot's video section; now you can view our video interviews, product close-ups and site visits with all the usual Slashdot options to comment, share, etc. No more walled garden! It's a work in progress -- we hope you'll check it out (Learn more about the recent updates).

Snowgen writes "Viacom has filed a $1,000,000,000.00 lawsuit for 'massive intentional copyright infringement' against Google over YouTube video clips. '"YouTube's strategy has been to avoid taking proactive steps to curtail the infringement on its site," Viacom said in a statement. "Their business model, which is based on building traffic and selling advertising off of unlicensed content, is clearly illegal and is in obvious conflict with copyright laws.'"

I wouldn't call it "hostage" because Google has absolutely no obligation to Viacom to provide them with search engine service.Personally, what *I* would be tempted to do would be to block anyone in Viacom's IP block from accessing Google at all. I'd say to do the same for YouTube, but they'd probably claim that was just to cover up the infringement, so it might be a bad idea.

I mean, exactly what does Google owe Viacom, anyhow? They aren't the ones putting up these clips--users are. And Google has what mi

Google, please drop all Viacom sites from google.com. After all, they hate all the free publicity and promotion you give them.

"Free" publicity?

More accurately, people go to Google to search for stuff like Viacom shows. If Google were ever dumb enough (they aren't) to start self-censoring to penalize foes in other areas of their business, people wouldn't use Google. Google would be shooting themselves in the face to spite a pimple.

And it isn't like this is unexpected. When YouTube was being woo'd, Mark Cuban was widely quoted for saying "Only a moron would buy YouTube" [huffingtonpost.com] (because of the huge potential lawsuit liability). Maybe a better statement would be "only a non-moron that has the cash to pay off the inevitable lawsuits", of which there are only a few companies, Google being one of them.

Nope, "people go to Google to search for stuff like" "shows". For Viacom's shows, Google is one way, the easy way, to find them. Without Google there would still be a way, the good old harder way, to find them.

You mean using one of the countless other search engines?

Google's biggest asset is the quality of their search. If Google compromised that (e.g. paid placements in results, or removing a set of results just to penalize someone), people would stop using Google, and would instead use one of the many oth

People suggest this every time, and every time the same response is valid: That's not a good solution on Google's part, because it ends up negatively impacting Google.

I guess I agree with you but isn't that what Viacom is is doing. Basically, since the two couldn't come up with a deal they were both satisfied with, Viacom is basically taking their ball and going home. I mean, we've been reading about possible deals since Google bought YouTube. Plus, there's http://www.iht.com/articles/2006/08/06/business/go ogle.php [iht.com]this deal that they made in August with Google video. I agree they can't really remove Viacom from their apps but still, it would be nice for somebody to

The dollar amount means NOTHING. They could have said $50,000,000 or $500,000,000,000 - the end result will be exactly the same, which will probably be that Google and Viacom will come to an agreement that google will do more to keep individuals from posting Viacom's crap, and Viacom gets to upload their crap to YouTube and stick advertising in it or offer it for sale (ala iTMS).

I think the consumer could end up worse for it.For example. Take littlekuriboh [youtube.com]. For anyone who doesn't know him he created a parody called "Yu-Gi-Oh The Abridged Series". Basically a poke at the stupid cartoon. Perfectly legal (as its parody and not a straight rip of the cartoon).

Extremely popular series as well, as soon as he posts an episode it goes to the top of the page.

However YouTube started nuking his episodes claiming copyright infringement. There are still a couple left on his account.

Think of it from Google's point of view. How does that help them? Google is helped by having the best, fastest, most effective search engine around. That's why people come to them, and that's why google gets ad revenue.

Google may be rich, but they are nowhere near big enough to bankrupt Viacom. Viacom has a revenue of over $9.6 Billion USD, whilst Google has $10.6 Billion (according to Wikipedia), but this isn't the case of a smaller firm trying to sue a giant. If anything, Viacom, as a conglomerate, will probably have greater cash reserve and certainly has more assets which can be sold off in the event of it needing more cash.

Google may be rich, but they are nowhere near big enough to bankrupt Viacom. Viacom has a revenue of over $9.6 Billion USD, whilst Google has $10.6 Billion (according to Wikipedia), but this isn't the case of a smaller firm trying to sue a giant. If anything, Viacom, as a conglomerate, will probably have greater cash reserve and certainly has more assets which can be sold off in the event of it needing more cash.

Google may be rich, but they are nowhere near big enough to bankrupt Viacom.

Most analysts consider GOOG to be inflated, but not hyper-inflated -- here's a quick Yahoo finance hit [yahoo.com] for GOOG key stats, note the market cap vs. enterprise value numbers. I don't have the specifics for how Yahoo calculates enterprise valuations, but they are in line with most analysts -- who, of course, could be wrong.

Actually, You Tube's business model is based on un-copyrighted material. Viacom has more to loose in the long run than a measly billion dollars as they don't understand the advertising model of the future: ie, they get free advertising. The other networks have figured this out and have joined the party. I place my bet on You Tube.

Viacom, like other media companies, is mostly worried about two things: (1) losing control of the distribution of their product, and (2) losing control of distribution, period. The first concern is legitimate, but can easily be remedied by Google simply by not allowing Viacom's property to be posted to the site. The second concern has more to do with the fear of the rise of competitive distribution channels, and that exists even if these channels don't deal in copyrighted material. There is a finite pie of ear- and eyeball-hours out there, and if 30% of them are ever drawn to Creative Commons type stuff, that's 30% that isn't paying Viacom.

Bankrupt them how? Viacom v. Google is about copyright infringement not patent and does not involve the complicated relationship between IBM, SCO, and a multitude of programmers and contracts...and not too mention linux code (or computer code for this and that), etc.If anything, a copyright case is far simplier than a patent as there is no question that Viacom owns the copyrights in question as opposed to a patent case where there is claim construction and questions of patent validity, which itself involve

For a billion dollars, it's much cheaper to just buy Viacom....Makes it sound like Viacom just shot themselves in the foot, but it makes sense. If it's going to cost a billion to stay in business, just by them out!

``Much cheaper'' in the sense of ``twenty five times more expensive''. Viacom's market cap is about 25 billion. To carry out a hostile take-over, which is what you're suggesting, would cost thirty five million or more.

I doubt they are suing for a nice round number, and I'm sure whatever number it is, they have a basis for it. The press release simply says, "More than a billion dollars." Because press releases need to use round numbers. And whatever they are actually awarded if they win won't necessarily be based on what's alleged in the complaint, it will be based on whatever damages the jury or court finds they are entitled to.

It's truly amazing how the fact that YouTube is now owned by a company with billions of dollars suddenly means that all the content is pirated. Apparently, before Google bought them, not a single clip was even slightly shady, but ever since they started to represent billions of dollars, every clip that's ever been shown is worthy of at least one lawsuit!

Wow, you should really change your argument to Mr Really Extreme guy. You sure have a way of presenting arguments in a balanced light, by present both cases in the most extreme possible. "So you either hate all children, and want them all tortured to death, or you love them and want the best for them, which is it?"

not a single clip was even slightly shady

Besides in your inane ramblings, where have you ever seen this before. Media companies have always wanted clips they consider their propery removed from youtube, and made a number of requests to do so, long before Youtube was bought by Google.

every clip that's ever been shown is worthy of at least one lawsuit!

And once again, who has ever said this? Nobody. Viacom want to be compensated for there clips making youtube money, which is what they do. Every clip shown makes google money.

This is a law suit that has been spoiling to happen for a while now, and I think both concerned parties have prepared for this.

In a statement, Viacom lashed out at YouTube's business practices, saying it has "built a lucrative business out of exploiting the devotion of fans to others' creative works in order to enrich itself and its corporate parent Google."

Isn't that what Viacom does for a living? It isn't people at Viacom writing and producing all this content -- it's the hard-working staffs of these shows, coming up with ideas, generating scripts, acting them out, putting them on tape/film. Viacom just sits there, puts them in the marketplace, and rakes in the advertising money.

I'm sure nobody at Google works for free either. But Viacom wants Google to do its dirty work for free: examining video clips, digging up the relevant copyright information, contacting the owner of the copyright to determine whether it should be posted to YouTube or not, and removing the offending clips.

Remember that while each media corporation is under the misguided assumption that they are the only folks who own the copyright on content, in truth, there are lots of clips on Google/YouTube that the copyright owner has posted legitimately, and many more clips where the copyright owner is unknown or cannot be located. Viacom wants to shift the burden of filling out DMCA takedown requests to Google, despite the fact that Congress (miraculously) realized that a hosting provider should not be responsible for vetting every piece of content that a user posts to their service.

Viacom is in a far better position to take care of everything that comes before the deletion of actual infringing content. They are aware of what material they own the copyright to, they already know who owns the copyright on that material, and they already know that they don't want it on YouTube. They also have a legal remedy - a DMCA takedown notice - for having such material removed.

If Google has to vet all of its content to make sure that Viacom doesn't hold the copyright, then they can't just stop with Viacom's content. They can't even stop with every ??AA member company's content. No, they have to establish the wishes of the copyright owner for every single piece of material on their site. And if Google loses, then every website that provides hosting space and shows advertising alongside it - Angelfire? Geocities? - has to do the same thing.

That's why the DMCA requires takedown notices, that's why it absolves hosting providers of responsibility for vetting material that their users post to their services, and that's why Google is in the clear and Viacom will be ponying up their legal fees in a few years' time.

I'll probably get modded down for this, but I don't think it's right that Google is allowed to generate all that eyeball-driven advertising revenue by broadcasting other people's copyrighted video content.

I like free video as much as the next guy, but people *own* this stuff. And Google does not.

Although I think 1 Billion is a little steep, I think you are right. I don't think that a TV network would last 2 minutes if they just decided to play content that they hadn't paid for. I don't see why Google should be treated any differently. Just because they're on the internet, doesn't give them the right to just broadcast whatever they want.

I agree completely. Lovers of free video have options. I'd like to see more of them produce their own content that is slick enough to generate huge demand for that video and then release it for free on YouTube.

That is more compelling than sitting in their parent's basement and whining for free access to the content Viacom has created.

You're right, of course, but sites like YouTube are a huge threat to the Big Media cartel regardless of whether they traffic in copyrighted material. A major barrier to entry in that industry is access to distribution channels: theaters, television and radio airtime, etc. It's like supermarket shelf space. That's why indy musicians and film producers have had such a hard time winning eyeballs regardless of the quality of their stuff. YouTube and sites like it bypass the gatekeepers and short-circuit the whole system; now just about anyone can reach the mass public if their creations catch a wave. Just as in the music industry, that scares the bejesus out of companies like Viacom because it strikes at the core of their business model.

It wouldn't surprise me a bit if Viacom indirectly had people posting copyrighted material to YouTube as fast as Google can take it down. They need to attack the channel regardless, and to do that successfully they need a copyright case.

It would surprise me very much if Viacom was paying people to post their content to Youtube, simply because they don't need to. Everyone is doing it for them.As much as it's wonderful that indie directors and artists now have a distribution channel, people still wish to watch things that they like. And oftentimes what they like has had its copyright assigned to a large corporation. I would never personally post an episode of Aqua Teen Hunger Force to Youtube, but I *would* watch one that someone else had po

Fair use provisions don't just include small portions of the work. You have to be using the small portion of the work in a larger work. IE, commenting on a single passage in a book, using snippets from a press conference to create a parody of the press conference, showing a scene from a movie to teach the importance of lighting in setting the scene, etc. Just taking a small portion & displaying it by itself doesn't fall under fair use. Heck, the riff from Under Pressure was deemed not to be fair use whe

This copyright violation is going on with YouTube since before google acquired them. Why didn't Viacom act at that point in time and close the website.
Since google has the money and I think this will be setteled out of court by google giving them some money to get away.
In the future we can see some big payday for Viacom

Probably. And it appears to have been part of the intent of the DMCA. However the act was pretty badly drafted, and part of it does depend on whether Google is directly profitting from the infringement.

Of course, in Youtube's favour, is the fact that the service clearly isn't intended as a vehicle for copyright infringement. Most of the material there is actually the home video stuff that the site is intended for, and they are making efforts to remove the material immediately.

The DMCA is badly drafted because the companies which wanted it -- content providers like Viacom -- deliberately had their lobbyists draft it that way. They expected to use the power of their corporate takedown-letter-writing department to shut down anything they didn't like. They didn't count on a service provider with the capacity to not only host enough content to give their takedown-letter department writer's cramp, but to actually be able to handle all those takedown letters without shutting down.

(IANAL) I look at this and wonder is google will use the common carrier clause. By not monitoring and policing the content of the users they could well fall under the common carrier clause. This would mean that as a common carrier, they are not responsible for the content that is on there network. The end users would be responsible.

I have worked at and run many ISP's, The lawyers ALWAYS insistent that any news feed be uncensored because the act of censoring or deleting any of the content could be used in court to show that we agreed with the content that remained. Thus we could be sewed for any illegal content that we missed.

Kad77, you sound like the VP of the ISP I worked for. That would be the one who called me at 2am because "We crashed and everything is down!"I get in and ask what happened and he tells me "I was downloading a new video and needed space on the server. So I deleted the junk directory that contained all the etcetera stuff." My response was "What etcetera stuff?" to which he replied "You know, the E T C directory"

He is also the same guy that plugged 6 900VA UPS's into a 3$ plug bar from K-Mart.

in other words, the more content you get out there, the cheaper you get it out there (hint: free), the more money you make: more traffic, more ad revenue, more awareness

this is the future, and old media doesn't get it. by putting traffic stops at the doors to their content, by micromanaging who seems what and when, you don't preserve your revenue streams, you kill them by making getting to them too obscure and/ or difficult

the guys who grew up on radio and television as their model just. don't. get. it.

In a statement, Viacom lashed out at YouTube's business practices, saying it has "built a lucrative business out of exploiting the devotion of fans to others' creative works in order to enrich itself and its corporate parent Google."

But of course, Viacom would never, ever go after the fans, would they?

I can understand Viacom's position here, and I don't think it's totally unjustified. That's not the same as "I totally agree with it", mind you, but I see where they're coming from. Google is using their copyrighted works to make money, and doing so without permission. Did said works get uploaded by others? Yes - but does this somehow absolve Google of wrong-doing?

I think that last question is what's going to need to be answered legislatively and judicially over the next decade. It seems wrong that Google is profiting off Viacom's work without permission or license, yet more restrictions will hinder the development of some technologies (ala some of the proposed remedies to mass copyright infringement via P2P). This, of course, assumes there is not some sort of drastic change in how copyright is handled - which I'm sure is the solution many Slashdotters would prefer, but doesn't strike me as terribly likely in the current legislative climate.

When I send mix CD's full of copyrighted material via USPS to my friends, USPS is using those copyrighted works to make money and doing so without permission. Does that absolve the USPS of wrong-doing?

If an ISP had a "per GB" pricing scheme, would you think that it would be justified for the entertainment industry to sue them from profiting from copyright infringement over P2P? If not, how is this different from YouTube? If so, does this mean you think ISPs should not have common carrier status?

If they didn't sue over this, Viacom was going to sue Google over the defamation inherent in their "don't be evil" motto. They still face possible pending charges under that from the RIAA; SCO; Microsoft; Halliburton; the Republican party; Al Qaeda; Dr. Evil, natch; and, oddly, Bono of U2 fame.

First of all let me start of by saying I think that this entire thing is stupid, and is purely out of greed and has nothing to do with some great goal of protecting ones work, but since that's not going to change, I have a question:

If Google pay's that fee, which seems quite large, does that give then retroactive ownsership of all Viacom material?

Viacom is doing NOTHING to make this content as available as it has become in youtube.Maybe if they did, and put in their own advertising, they'd be making the ad dollars off this content instead of loosing it to youtube.

Well, the Comedy Central site does have a pretty large amount of video up, with their own advertisements. That has to be pretty annoying to them, that they put up their own infrastructure for web video, yet everyone is watching the same clips on YouTube and Google is getting the advertising $.
Plus it's the same content they are trying to sell over Windows and Xbox Live.

...the entertainment industry's lawsuits are way more interesting than their TV shows, movies, and records? Maybe they should formally change their business model and go primarily into lawsuits as a creative medium.

Yeah, it seems like many other people shared this view when the news of Google buying Youtube came out.

Youtube was popular but not really making any money.

Google buys them, and Google has money.

Now it's Youtube, but with money to sue them for. Google buying them just upped the risk factor considerably. Google has quite a few brainy folks on their side, I'm sure they saw the lawsuits coming. So I'm wondering, what's the plan they have in store for this contingency, because there's no way they would've gone into this without a plan...right?

Google has been spoiling for a fight over the DMCA safe-harbor provisions for some time now. Their book search and regular search business depends heavily on that part of the DMCA's enforceability. Without it, the Prodigy and Napster decisions could be used to annihilate Google and every other modern search engine.

Its far better for Google to explore the ramifications via a subsidiary company that can be cut loose to die if need be.

This was actually discussed quite a bit here on Slashdot back when the Google buyout was announced. The general feeling was that because much of Google's business model and future plans depends so heavily on the eventually outcome of the inevitable lawsuits that sites like YouTube are going to generate, that Google needed to buy YouTube just so they could be a party to those lawsuits, and use their considerable legal and financial resources to try to ensure that they get a favorable ruling.

"and use their considerable legal and financial resources to try to ensure that they get a favorable ruling."

I doubt there's any point to that; the courts basically cannot resolve this issue in any useful way within the current legal framework. The idea of handing out monopolies might have been useful when the point was to keep the kings friends rich and happy and the content controlled, but they simply cannot be reconciled with a free market economy and todays rate of technological and content evolution. As long as the system is tied to monopoly rights you only have the choice of who you're going to allow to screw everyone else (which fundamentally means, the more 'IP' we have, the more all of us are going to get screwed (and in slightly more economical terms, the more waste we'll get in the system due to monopoly inefficiency)).

It would be more useful to engage in actively trying to fundamentally restructure the 'IP' incentive system to a fundamentally non-confrontational incentive system. Look over the foundation.

Some say we need an incentive to be creative. While I personally disagree to a fair extent (and things like free software indicates otherwise), ok, I'll buy that maybe some people do need an incentive, and that some creative talent could be more creatively productive if they had a certain economic security. As the point of an intellectual incentive system would be to maximize creativity, that leads to the conclusion that we somehow may need to finance creativity beyond what a fully competetive market would do. So, say, a popular creative work of value to many people should conceivably generate enough revenue for the creator/participants to live off for a certain time (too short would be bad and an insufficient incentive, too long and there would be no (again, claimed) economic incentive to create further works (and spend too much on a single creative work, and you get fewer works for total economic resources spent instead).

So, how do we determine what works merit incentive? Let the free market handle it; works that get copied the most, ie, are most highly desired should probably be the first to receive incentives (until their useful payout is exceeded, the authors et. al die, etc, and the incentive no longer serves the creative purpose). As there would be no right to prevent copying anymore, there would be no particular reason to avoid reporting the numbers of copies being made, ie, it would free up anything from p2p networks through youtube, IPTV broadcasters, network radio broadcasters, etc, to record popularity of works and lay the foundation of who gets paid.

Then the final question becomes, how does one finance the system? First, realize that the current system is essentially a tax. The costs to the economy are very real and altho the copyright holders have a strong incentive to shut up about the actual costs to the economy, the billions they collect are as real as the billions the IRS collect. The difference is, with the billions the IRS collect, there's actually some theoretical and nominal responsibility and accounting of the costs to the economy and what they're used for.

As responsibility, accounting and some form of democratic control over incentive systems is generally regarded as a good thing, I'd say moving the collection of revenue and responsibility for the system over to the state agencies usually responsible for such things to be fairly reasonable. So where in the economy would it be most equitable to collect the funding? Personally, I'd say, where the money's made. IE, slap a tax on youtube ad revenue. Slap a tax on movie theatres. Slap a tax on IPTV revenues. In fact, slap a tax right over anyone who makes money off selling, distributing, or performing the works in question. As the works being played is recorded and accounted for (something which is already done in most cases), the funds gathered from display of that work will primarily be going to the creators of the work, making sure the incentive generated is both as equitably gathered and a

Viacom wants to license their content to Google to show on YouTube. Viacom tried to negotiate with Google to get this done, but felt that Google's response (whatever it was) was unsatisfactory. Now, Viacom is taking the next logical step.YouTube is going to take the same path as Napster did: it will be sued into oblivion (or maybe settle for however many hundreds of millions of dollars), and come back as a for-pay service, probably by showing clips of licensed shows for free (ad supported) and offering f

I'm not saying that Google is some paragon of virtue, but they have money and lawyers. Good lawyers, ones who can put up a fight. Chances are Viacom is hoping that Google will decide it's better to settle than to fight in court, because any such fight would likely be long and drawn out.

The other difference is that I don't think anyone seriously believes that Napster's "library" was mostly original work, authorized (and uploaded) by the copyright holders, with the majority of Napster's users going to it for access to that type of content. Oh sure, some of it was, but the vast majority...

YouTube, by comparison, seems to be mostly original work, created and posted by the copyright holders to those works, they publish. As a tool, it's clearly aimed at legitimate uses, and Viacom's one legitimate complaint might be (MIGHT be) that Google just didn't police it well enough.

YouTube has much more chance of landing a Betamax-type verdict than Napster did. I'm not saying it's cut and dried, but I'd be surprised if they can't at least deflect the bulk of the liability to their (copyright infringing) users, which is arguably as it should be. $1 billion dollars? IANAL, but I just don't see it.

YouTube has much more chance of landing a Betamax-type verdict than Napster did. I'm not saying it's cut and dried, but I'd be surprised if they can't at least deflect the bulk of the liability to their (copyright infringing) users, which is arguably as it should be. $1 billion dollars? IANAL, but I just don't see it.

I kind of agree with you. The same can be said for all the MySpace lawsuits [google.com] out there. It's really a question of how courts will view the newish paradigm of websites being merely conduits for user behavior and simply trying to monetize the traffic. Maybe that's oversimplified though. I suppose if there was a magazine that printed reader submitted stories and happened to print excerpts of Moby Dick, the magazine publisher would probably be liable.

Wow you're the guru of predictions. You were only 2 weeks behind the often linked rant [blogmaverick.com].

Actually, did anyone not predict this?

1. Website blatantly infringes copyright of big media companies, but company has no capital or profits2. Said company is bought by huge internet company.3. Website blatantly infringes copyright of big media companies, owner has huge amounts of capital stuffed under the couch4. ??? No one could predict what goes here ???

Look, im sorry- I really don't mean to flamebait here. In fact, I really ought to post this as AC just to avoid the karma dock. But Im not going to. Are you really patting yourself on the back for predicting that someone would sue google 6 months ago? Did you miss the hundreds of other analysts, newspapers, and critics that said the same thing? Did you miss how the one of the biggest aspects of the merger being talked about by wall street was the escrow account for copyright issues?

So congratulations, you predicted that google would get sued over YouTube. With insight like that, maybe you could get a job forecasting the weather in LA (today: sunny. tomorrow: sunny...). Or maybe you just wanted to shamelessly link your blog.

Anyway, if anyone needs me, ill be over in the corner modded down to -infinity, flamebait. But at least I wont be claiming to be a genius for predicting that the sun will rise tomorrow morning (REALLY! ITS TRUE, WAIT AND SEE!).

Because the original YouTube didn't have much of a money-making model, and certainly not one tied to the actual content played, while Google can actually match ads to it. E.g., if you search for videos about cooking, they can try to sell you a cookbook. (Well, at least in an ideal world where that keyword matching actually worked, and people actually set the right keywords.) So in a sense, now Google's income actually depends on covering the whole content spe

Google Buys YouTube even though everyone under the sun knows that makes them a target for litigation.

Why would they do it? Because this case will dictate and set precedent for the future of this business model. Google was already going in the direction of online video, but YouTube had a better userbase. Google couldn't afford to let YouTube to get sued into oblivion by some huge multinational media giant. It was in Google's best interest to buy the company and fight this fight with their resources instead of letting an underfunded (relatively) startup set the precedent.